1 (1) The authority of many experts teaches what great fruits the science of language that we call “logic” brings forth for the followers of truth, while reason and experience clearly confirm and prove [it].2 Hence Aristotle, the main originator of this science, calls [it] now an introductory method, now a way of knowing, now a science common to all [things] and the way to truth. By these [phrases] he indicates that the entryway to wisdom is accessible to no one not educated in logic. Averroes too, the interpreter of Aristotle, says in his [Commentary on the] Physics3 that dialectic is “the tool for distinguishing between the true and the false”. For it settles all doubts, [and] dissolves and penetrates [to the bottom of] all the difficulties of Scripture, as the distinguished teacher Augustine bears witness.4
(2) For since the actions of a wise [man] toward another [person] are two, “not to lie about what he knows, and to be able to show up a liar”, as is written in the Sophistic Refutations,5 but this cannot come about without distinguishing the true from the false, which only this [logical] method does, [therefore] it is quite apparent that it is a most useful [method] for one who speculates.
(3) This alone provides the ability to argue about every problem and teaches how to resolve every kind of sophism and to find the middle [term] of a demonstration. It frees the mind too from the chains by which (alas) it was constrained, and restores it to liberty. For just as chains bind the limbs of the body and prevent [them from performing] the tasks for which they were designed, so false and sophistical arguments tie up the mind, as Aristotle teaches.6
(4) Likewise, this art uncovers the darkness of errors and directs the acts of human reason like a kind of light. In fact, when compared to light, it is found to be prior. For just as, if physical light were blocked out, human actions would be either halted [altogether] or else random and often to the detriment of the doer, so [are] acts of human reason without skill in this faculty.
(5) For we see many [people] who, neglecting this science [and nevertheless] wishing to devote themselves to learning, wander about all over the place scattering various errors around in [their] teaching, making up opinions full of absurdity with no restraint or order, weaving and putting together scarcely intelligible statements, suffering from something like the dreams of sluggards and the fictions of poets, ignorant of the meaning of their own speech.7 They are all the more dangerously in error the more they regard themselves as wise in comparison with others, recklessly hurling falsehoods indiscriminately in place of truths at the ears of their listeners.
(6) And so, moved by a consideration of the abovementioned usefulness that logic serves, the distinguished Peripatetic philosopher Aristotle ingeniously put it together.8 [But] because of the obscurity of the Greek language [when] translated into Latin, one could scarcely follow [the text] without spending a great deal of time. For this reason, later [people] who were well enough educated in these matters showed those who were preoccupied [with other concerns] the easy way to [logic] by writing various works. Among these [people], I regard the preeminent one, certainly, [to be] the venerable Doctor Friar William, an Englishman by nationality, a “Minor” by orders,9 but exalted in the keenness of his ability and the truth of his teaching.10
(7) Indeed, this exceptional Doctor, often assailed by many [people’s] requests, put together an investigation of the whole of this [logical] method, clearly and transparently and earnestly, starting from terms (as from what is prior), and then proceeding to the rest until he arrived at the end. And so, directing his pen to the students who were repeating their requests for this splendid but succinct volume, and yet wishing to benefit all, he began by saying:
Translation by Paul Vincent Spade, CC BY 4.0. Source: Indiana University ScholarWorks. Changes: format conversion only (PDF to Markdown; footnotes, italics and paragraph numbers kept; margin line numbers and page headers dropped).
Contents · William of Ockham’s Prefatory Letter →
Footnotes
-
That is, Adam Wodeham, a contemporary of Ockham and possibly for a while his personal secretary. ↩
-
Adam is paraphrasing the opening lines of Boethius’ De divisione, which say the same thing about the “science of dividing.” See Jacques-Paul Migne, ed. Patrologiae cursus completus … series latina, 221 vols., Paris: J.-P. Migne, 1844–1864, vol. 74, col. 875D. (This series is conventionally referred to as the Patrologia latina, and cited simply as the “PL.” I will follow this convention below.) ↩
-
Averroes, In Arist. Physicam I, textus 35, ed. Juntina, IV, fol. 11vb. Note: I am here and throughout following the references given in the critical edition of the Summa logicae, Gedeon Gál and Stephen F. Brown, eds., (“Opera philosophica,” vol. 1; St. Bonaventure, NY: The Franciscan Institute, 1974). The editors used the “earlier” Latin “Juntina” edition of Averroes. There was also a “later” edition published a few years afterwards, which is much more readily available nowadays, manly because it has been photoreprinted. The folio references are not at all the same. So those who want to look up these references will have to do some homework. **“**William of Ockham, From His Summa of Logic, Part I: Adam (of Wodeham’s) Prologue, Ockham’s Prefatory Letter and Chs. 1–6, 8–13, 26–28, 30–31, 33, 63–66, 70, 72, with summaries of Chs. 7, 29, 32,” translation by Paul Vincent Spade, is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. ↩
-
Augustine, De doctrina christiana II, 31 n. 48, PL 34, col. 58. ↩
-
Aristotle, Sophistic Refutations 1, 165a24–27. ↩
-
Ibid., 165a13–17. ↩
-
‘ignorant … speech’ = vim propriae vocis ignorantes. This could also mean “ignorant of the strength of their own voice,” but that seems less likely here. ↩
-
At Sophistic Refutations 34, 183b34–36, Aristotle in effect claims to have invented logic. Before his work, he says, nothing had been written on the topic. ↩
-
That is, he belonged to the “Order of Friars Minor,” the Franciscans. ↩
-
There is a little word-play here. The point is that, although Ockham is a “Minor” in religious orders, he is by no means “minor” in these latter respects. ↩